if you will line up at the mike's. -- mics. this gives us about 20 minutes. >> i appear to have answered every question. >> inc. you for coming. -- thank you for coming. one of the arguments for less government involvement is that, if people hold onto their money more, they will be in a position to take care of the poor and oppressed, etc.. can you imagine where else that might come from? do you think it is possible for those able to be taken care of outside of a religious context and political context? is there an >> i am not denying the role, which americans of all political persuasions agree on. the state has been supplying a social safety net. there are potential costs to this. i do not just mean financial cost. there is a cost of a crowding out of private initiatives. crowding out of charity. and offloading of these onto the state. it is indicative of something important that the charitable impulse of the united states is stronger than in europe. welfare states are stronger in europe than the american states. the united st